Homeopathy: Science or Superstition?
Posted on February 2, 2010
Filed Under Alternative Medicine |
The third video in a series exploring the claims of alternative medicine, this one dealing with homeopathy. ————————- Sources: 1. Clinical Trials (2003-2007) - altmed.creighton.edu 2. Homeopaths ‘endangering lives’ by offering malaria remedies - www.guardian.co.uk 3. Patient died after being told to stop heart medicine - www.telegraph.co.uk For more info on homeopathy: www.quackwatch.org altmed.creighton.edu
Comments
25 Responses to “Homeopathy: Science or Superstition?”
Leave a Reply
Being fascinated by Science is Okay but do remember that the truths of science have not stood the tests of time and have changed - sometimes to the opposite. There is a lot in unknown realm …
And just what do you think the “truths of science” are? Scientific theories may change, yes, but the facts that they explain do not. It is not a weakness that science can change in light of new evidence either, it is a strength. Science is perfectly open to suggestions and the “unknown realm”. Exploring the unknown is precisely science’s job.
there are always credulous people believing in all sorts of things
You’re conflating the word ‘feeling’. This word has two different meanings. Physical pain is not he same thing as emotional pain. You may not be aware of this but you have just used the equivocation fallacy to make your point.
I well appreciate what you say but perhaps we are talking about the same thing - so to clarify again, since we seem to agree that science does not always know about the unknown, not everything that is unexplainable as of today by science can be termed as superstition.
I do agree, but homeopathy and the placebo effect are not unexplainable. I chalk homeopathy up to superstition because it goes against well known and established scientific facts. If you dilute a substance so much, all you have left is water. The idea that this unleashes some magical healing power is a spiritual idea, not a scientific one. If it wants to be called science, it has to go through the scientific method.
Well, perhaps. To a layman however, what matter is - if it works or not irrespective of whether it is a science or not. But surely, this video is quite ifnormative and good. I am also curious to know if you have something on vaccinations too? Are vaccinations a science?
Homeopathy is neither science or superstition. Nothing factual, nothing magical, Just idiotic propaganda.
Yes, part of science is experimentation, but homeopaths miss several other steps like double-blind studies, making predictions, and submitting the work to peer-reviewed analysis. We know the “finer details” of molecules not because some dumbass came up with a metaphysical theory and his patients swore it worked. We know it because those who discovered it used the FULL scientific method to prove the existence of atoms.
You don’t understand what the word SCIENTIFIC means. Where is the evidence of these fundamental laws and principles that you think homeopathy is based on? Unleashing your “personal healing power” by diluting a substance to water is not scientific, it’s superstitious, and it will remain that way until proven otherwise. Science is about EVIDENCE, PROOF, DISCOVERY, EXPERIMENTATION, not just wild hypotheses.
Maybe they are attempting double-blind studies, but where are the conclusive results that prove the efficacy of homeopathy? I don’t agree that their work isn’t being properly analyzed, I think it’s been pointed out to be fallacious in a lot of the seemingly successful cases. Even so, you haven’t given any examples of these studies, so why should I believe you?
No, I don’t think all modern medicine is de facto scientific. Pharmaceutical drugs are banned because companies create products under questionable conditions and rush them out to make money, and then they are exposed as ineffective or dangerous by real scientists and real physicians. The pharmaceutical companies are at fault though, not some generic institute of “modern medicine”. Is something bad or untrustworthy just for being modern? Should bloodletting be reinstated in medical practice?
The Materia Medica in homeopathy is a joke. It’s nothing but the collected observations and assumptions from the 19th century. Samuel Hahnemann just concluded that whatever substance gave someone certain symptoms could be used to cure those who naturally exhibited those symptoms. He didn’t bother to test or validate any of it in an unbiased study. Materia Medica is subjective symptoms PLUS subjective “cures” - in other words: garbage.
When a disease is the same strain in humans and animals and biologically affects both humans and animals in much the same way, why shouldn’t a cure for animals be considered a cure for humans? It’s hardly that simple though. You don’t seem even aware of the voluntary testing that IS done on humans. Just admit it, homeopathy is religion, it’s superstition, not science.
You’re repeating your own delusions now, but it won’t make them true. All it means when a drug is banned is that the company which made it was cheating in their research or cheating in the steps it took them to legalize it and put it on shelves. Because we have STANDARDS, we don’t just allow any untested crap in most pharmacies, and we pull things proven to cause harm or not proven to cure what they claim to. For this reason, homeopathic treatments are not in pharmacies.
Homeopathy IS just diluting a substance massively. Hahnemann believed that would unleash the “spiritual healing powers” of the substance. Treating suffering based on the symptoms produced by certain substances is also faith-based, unverified crap. If I give you a cockroach to eat and it makes you vomit, should I give you a cockroach to “cure” you when you’re vomiting from sickness?
This is the dogma to the religion of homeopathy. How do you know this law of nature is true? Did Hahnemann or his followers test it? Did you test it? It sounds an awful lot like an assumption, not a law.
“Physical pain is not he same thing as emotional pain.”
And physical pain is dependent upon the nerves firing. It IS dependent on the nervous system. “Feeling” IS a psychological phenomenon. Isaac was just explaining why the placebo treats minor aches and symptoms quite well. The placebo works on that pain which is dependent on our perception or expectation of what should be happening, as well as ignoring pain which is actually there.
After watching this video I am utterly convinced: it’s Chris Griffin from family guy!
Homeopathy might not be such a bad thing.
Idiots will be more likely to go to it for a cure and hence be more likely to die from inadequate treatment of their ailments, resulting in natural selection to favour a less gullible, less naive, and less retarded population.
Heavily diluted is a bit of an understatement. More like ridiculously diluted out of the solution. Homeopathy can only cure dehydration.
Homeopathy is creating money out of pure water.
That’s clever!
This is true: homeopathy work as good as placebo do. And both WORK!
…and prayer as well work.
Does it make a science?
Hahnemann was an incredibly moron. He didn’t understand causality. Instead of understanding that cinchona bark helps with malaria for a chemical reason, he assumed it was because it produced the same symptoms. What a dope.
“Idiots will be more likely to go to it for a cure? and hence be more likely to die from inadequate treatment of their ailments, resulting in natural selection to favour a less gullible, less naive, and less retarded population.”
Hmm… interesting observation. Excellent point!